No, that is not what I said about A. A is the SOURCE of the elements which define the sets called B. C is that finite collection of sets B which constitute everything available to you. A may be what you would like to explain but the entirety of A may not be available to you. If the number of elements in A is infinite then they certainly cannot all be available to you (no matter how much included, there must be more which is not - that's the definition of infinity).

Furthermore, the idea that A is entirely available to you implies that no possibility exists which might surprise you. Either you are all knowing or quite ignorant of your limitations (you just think you are all knowing).

You seem to have lost sight of the reason for the specification of those three different sets. Without defining those three sets, it seems to me that it is quite impossible to set up a general model of the concept "testable information".

If you already know everything, (A = C) then there exists nothing to test.

If you are truly giving up, then I am more sorry than you. I was hoping your ability to think on an abstract level was a little stronger than that.

But that's all right too -- Dick

• Well you never answered my last question - wandaqueen - January 4, 2005 - 00:45 UTC
  • I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:13 UTC
    • Seems contradictory - wandaqueen - January 5, 2005 - 14:31 UTC
      • I really didn't intend to upset you. - doctordick - January 6, 2005 - 01:12 UTC
        • Ahh- You defined expectation - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:45 UTC
        • Here is a clear contradiction - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:50 UTC
          • Thank you for your attention. - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 05:08 UTC
            • A model of nature - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 16:24 UTC
              • Harv???? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 17:24 UTC
                • Someone else came to the same conclusion? - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 18:47 UTC
                  • Are you serious? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 21:35 UTC
                    • You said it yourself - wandaqueen - January 9, 2005 - 03:49 UTC
                      • That is a worthless post! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:53 UTC
                        • "phenomena to be modeled" has to be specific explanation" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:48 UTC
                          • You haven't got the slightest idea what I am modeling! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:04 UTC
                            • You do not know me - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 21:15 UTC
                • Dick???? - harvey1 - January 8, 2005 - 20:38 UTC
                  • I already answered it! - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 22:20 UTC
            • Everything means infinity - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 15:52 UTC
              • Harv/Wanda and who else? Maybe Bruce? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:49 UTC
                • I'm having fun - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:58 UTC
                  • I don't think you have paid any attention at all to what I say! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:12 UTC
                    • intellectual honesty is not your strong suit! - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:48 UTC
            • Sorry- you said 'Theory of Anything" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:53 UTC
              • And exactly where did I say "theory" of anything? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:17 UTC
                • Explanation =s theory in my mind - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:53 UTC
  • I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:14 UTC